Future communication challenges include genetic risk communication, concepts like watchful waiting, cumulative radiation risk, late effects of treatment, discussing Internet information and unproven therapies, phase I trial enrollment, and working as a multidisciplinary team. Patient benefits, such as increased treatment adherence and enhanced adaptation, need to be demonstrated from CST.
Purpose Decision making regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is challenging. This study examined the effect of a video decision support tool on CPR preferences among patients with advanced cancer. Patients and Methods We performed a randomized controlled trial of 150 patients with advanced cancer from four oncology centers. Participants in the control arm (n = 80) listened to a verbal narrative describing CPR and the likelihood of successful resuscitation. Participants in the intervention arm (n = 70) listened to the identical narrative and viewed a 3-minute video depicting a patient on a ventilator and CPR being performed on a simulated patient. The primary outcome was participants' preference for or against CPR measured immediately after exposure to either modality. Secondary outcomes were participants' knowledge of CPR (score range of 0 to 4, with higher score indicating more knowledge) and comfort with video. Results The mean age of participants was 62 years (standard deviation, 11 years); 49% were women, 44% were African American or Latino, and 47% had lung or colon cancer. After the verbal narrative, in the control arm, 38 participants (48%) wanted CPR, 41 (51%) wanted no CPR, and one (1%) was uncertain. In contrast, in the intervention arm, 14 participants (20%) wanted CPR, 55 (79%) wanted no CPR, and 1 (1%) was uncertain (unadjusted odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.7 to 7.2; P < .001). Mean knowledge scores were higher in the intervention arm than in the control arm (3.3 ± 1.0 v 2.6 ± 1.3, respectively; P < .001), and 65 participants (93%) in the intervention arm were comfortable watching the video. Conclusion Participants with advanced cancer who viewed a video of CPR were less likely to opt for CPR than those who listened to a verbal narrative.
Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an important advance directive (AD) topic in patients with progressive cancer; however such discussions are challenging. Objective: This study investigates whether video educational information about CPR engenders broader advance care planning (ACP) discourse. Methods: Patients with progressive pancreas or hepatobiliary cancer were randomized to an educational CPR video or a similar CPR narrative. The primary end-point was the difference in ACP documentation one month posttest between arms. Secondary end-points included study impressions; pre-and post-intervention knowledge of and preferences for CPR and mechanical ventilation; and longitudinal patient outcomes. Results: Fifty-six subjects were consented and analyzed. Rates of ACP documentation (either formal ADs or documented discussions) were 40% in the video arm (12/30) compared to 15% in the narrative arm (4/26), OR = 3.6 [95% CI: 0.9-18.0], p = 0.07. Post-intervention knowledge was higher in both arms. Posttest, preferences for CPR had changed in the video arm but not in the narrative arm. Preferences regarding mechanical ventilation did not change in either arm. The majority of subjects in both arms reported the information as helpful and comfortable to discuss, and they recommended it to others. More deaths occurred in the video arm compared to the narrative arm, and more subjects died in hospice settings in the video arm. Conclusions: This pilot randomized trial addressing downstream ACP effects of video versus narrative decision tools demonstrated a trend towards more ACP documentation in video subjects. This trend, as well as other video effects, is the subject of ongoing study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.